Leverty & Hurley Co. v. City of Danbury
| Decision Date | 03 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | File 54231 |
| Citation | 7 Conn.Supp. 125 |
| Parties | LEVERTY & HURLEY CO. v. CITY OF DANBURY |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
A city will not be permitted to avoid payment for the resurfacing of pavement at agreed unit prices, and for the reasonable value of materials furnished, by reason of noncompliance with provisions of special laws governing the conduct of the affairs of the city, where the facts create an estoppel on the part of the city.
Boardman, Grout, Swain & McCarthy, of Bridgeport, for the Plaintiff.
Thomas A. Keating, of Danbury, for the Defendant.
The plaintiff is a contracting company of the City of Bridgeport and the action is set forth in two counts: first, under the terms of the contract, Exhibit A, for the resurfacing of asphalt pavement on Main Street in Danbury, at agreed unit prices; and second, for the reasonable value of the materials furnished.
The defendant resists this action by setting forth the noncompliance by the city with a number of provisions of the special laws governing the conduct of affairs of the City of Danbury-for instance, that there was no advertising of bids no certification of an appropriation by the city treasurer the undertaking of the contract by the purchasing agent of the city, instead of its authorization by the city council, an insufficient appropriation-as well as disputing what work was contemplated by the contract.
These contentions provoke the difficult one, several times before our Supreme Court, with respect to municipal undertakings. While complete recital of the facts is unessential in a trial memorandum, for the purpose of approaching the principles of law, some few facts may be stated: I find that the plaintiff has supplied the materials sued for in the amount claimed. No complaint is made of the quality of the work. Under the contract, the work was to be performed in 15 working days, or less. The contract was to be performed on the basis of unit costs wherein labor was an incident to the supplying of the material. The task of directing the contractor in the performance of the resurfacing was reposed in the city engineer, and the superintendent of public works. Preliminarily, the street was traversed, and in a general way the portions of the pavement to be replaced pointed out under an original appropriation of $5,000. Before that amount of work had been completed, it became apparent that for the work originally proposed to be done that appropriation would not suffice, and a meeting was held between the authorities of Danbury and the contractor and his representatives, wherein it was suggested that approximately $1,500 more would be required to do the work then in contemplation, and it was arranged that payment for that work should be made by a transfer of unexpended balances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal School Laboratories, Inc. v. Town of Watertown
...equipment and the price is reasonable. Under the circumstances the defendants cannot now say "We shall not pay". Leverty & Hurley Co. v. City of Danbury, 7 Conn.Supp. 125 (1939). The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on counts 1 and 3 of the Tort is the basis of recovery in count 2 of the c......